A Clinical Trial to Increase Self-Monitoring of Physical Activity and Eating Behaviors Among Adolescents: Protocol for the ImPACT Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe obesity among youths (BMI for age≥120th percentile) has been steadily increasing. The home environment and parental behavioral modeling are two of the strongest predictors of child weight loss during weight loss interventions, which highlights that a family-based treatment approach is warranted. This strategy has been successful in our existing evidence-based pediatric weight management program, Brenner Families in Training (Brenner FIT). However, this program relies on face-to-face encounters, which are limited by the time constraints of the families enrolled in treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to refine and test a tailored suite of mobile health (mHealth) components to augment an existing evidence-based pediatric weight management program. METHODS: Study outcomes will include acceptability from a patient and clinical staff perspective, feasibility, and economic costs relative to the established weight management protocol alone (ie, Brenner FIT vs Brenner FIT + mHealth [Brenner mFIT]). The Brenner mFIT intervention will consist of 6 mHealth components designed to increase patient and caregiver exposure to Brenner FIT programmatic content including the following: (1) a mobile-enabled website, (2) dietary and physical activity tracking, (3) caregiver podcasts (n=12), (4) animated videos (n=6) for adolescent patients, (5) interactive messaging, and (6) in-person tailored clinical feedback provided based on a web-based dashboard. For the study, 80 youths with obesity (aged 13-18 years) and caregiver dyads will be randomized to Brenner FIT or Brenner mFIT. All participants will complete baseline measures before randomization and at 3- and 6-month follow-up points. RESULTS: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board in July 2019, funded in August 2019, and will commence enrollment in April 2020. The results of the study are expected to be published in the fall/winter of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will be used to inform a large-scale implementation-effectiveness clinical trial. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/18098.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.017 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".